Here you'll love this, I quoted the WSJ Editorial Board the other day, but this is what the Washington Post Editorial Board had to say today, (but do these unelected Government Bureaucrats really have a disinterested neutral stake in interpreting the limits of their power as mandated by their enabling Statutes OR are their interpretations the result of the political whims of the current POTUS?):
"With the major-questions doctrine in place, courts already have more latitude to prevent liberal presidents from regulating ambitiously. By also pushing for Chevron's destruction, conservatives run the risk that, when Republican administrations try to write weak regulations that arguably fall short of what Congress desired, future courts might not defer to them.
This risk rises as time goes on and the judiciary continues to evolve, at some point drifting back leftward. Progressives will ask judges to force federal agencies to, say, more aggressively enforce clean-air laws, substituting their own expansive view of the law for that of agencies that might be more cautious.
The moment calls for restraint from a court decreasingly interested in this virtue. Not because overturning Chevron would permanently hobble progressive governance but because doing so would be disruptive and unnecessary. Chevron's underlying logic is sound: On balance, federal experts are better suited to filling gaps in the law than courts. Overturning Chevron, meanwhile, would spur advocates of all ideological stripes to bring countless new lawsuits before judges they believe will be sympathetic to their cause; they will have some 800 federal district court judges across the country from whom to choose."
